Upgrading from D90 to FX camera. What to buy?

[steven_pink]

<blockquote>

<p>This evening a D600 (with freshly replaced shutter mechanism and sensor) was listed on my local craigslist for $1100 with an 85mm f/1.8 or $950 without the lens and it's pretty hard to beat a price like that.<br>

<br />i would snap that up then. an 85 is nice on FX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm conversing with the seller this evening and I'm planning a trip tomorrow if all goes well. Perks of online college? Driving 3 hours spare of the moment to go buy a cheap camera.</p>

[Two23]

<p>An example of bokeh from a Petzval. I took this shot of General Custer at Ft. Sisseton, SD using a Chamonix 045n 4x5 and a Ross Petzval 5 inch (125mm) f3.5. Lens was made in 1845. Note how rapidly the image turns soft. I kept the entire 4x5 image area except for about an inch or so from the top. In the Civil War period this would have been either a quarter plate or sixth plate portrait (much smaller) and the blurry part would have been cropped off, keeping just the head and upper torso. I now have three 19th C. lenses adapted to Nikon F, and my customers do like a few shots made from them. It's one of the things that helps differentiate me from the low ball crowd charging only a hundred bucks. A different digital camera would make zero difference to them.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>very nice, kent. </p>

[steven_pink]

I feel like I'm the lowball photographer Kent curses... $75 portrait sessions and giving away unlimited printing rights with

my photo CDs. $10 for 8x10s with my sports pictures and event photo CDs for $15-$30 depending on the venue... I could

charge more, but I'm too kind hearted to charge more. It's a hobby for me, ya know? I'm being payed to do my favorite

thing in the world, I can't charge a lot for that regardless of how good my work is. Ya, I could charge more and buy fancy equipment with the extra money, but that's not why I do it. I take pictures because I love capturing the moments in life that bring people joy and will be remembered forever. Heck, if it didn't cost me anything to print photos/make CDs/drive places to take photos I'd do it all for free.

[elliot1]

<p>For anyone interested in the 'new' Petzval:<br>

http://microsites.lomography.com/petzval-lens/</p>

<p>interesting lens! great shot, Kent!</p>

<p>Can you post an image of your lens?</p>

[Two23]

<p><<I feel like I'm the lowball photographer Kent curses... $75 portrait sessions and giving away unlimited printing rights with my photo CDs. $10 for 8x10s with my sports pictures and event photo CDs for $15-$30 depending on the venue...>></p>

<p>I'm not cursing anyone, but here's how I look at it. I have a full time job and any photography comes out of my free time. My time is valuable. If the choice was to spend two hours shooting portraits of a family my wife (pharmacist) works with OR spend it out shooting what I want, all things being equal I go for the fun. To get me to shoot the portraits etc. I need compensation. I've spent a lot of time & money getting to where I'm half way decent at photography. I have some marketable skills and want to earn back the thousands I've spent on film/processing, gear, classes, etc. down through the years. If a family is poor I have been known to do charity work, or charity work for volunteer organizations/churches. However, my clients are NOT poor. They are doctors, pharmacists, physical therapists, lab techs--all making good money. I generally charge $250 for portrait sessions, and if I pull out the 4x5 and historic lenses that goes up. Fast. I don't really like weddings, but if I spend the days and days worth of time needed to do one competently, that starts at $2,000. I do give the rights to the customer.</p>

<p> Here's something I've learned, mostly from my competition. If you charge twenty bucks, people assume you aren't any good. If you charge $200, they're opinion of you increases dramatically. If you can charge $2,000 for a portrait setting, you are seen as the world's best! :-) (I'm not there yet.) Best advice I ever got, back in the 1990s when I was selling stock photography, was to charge the market rate for your work. Once you've set your prices, it's hard to raise them. You can always lower if you have to. Right now you are student and not making any money, probably not even covering the cost of your gas. YOU are the charity here. If you are selling to your peers (other poor students) that is one thing, but if you are selling at these rates to established people with a full time job that's another. I do understand you are in effect charging a token amount to cover your on the job training, but the downside is you aren't earning enough to really justify buying even a $1,000 camera. That's how many, 100 8x10 sales you'll have to make to just break even? Take a look at how much your gas, the yearly depreciation on your equipment is, and whatever other direct costs you have are. Add 10% and come to your minimum charge. If your output is worth that, people will pay it. To improve your portrait quality and what you can charge, keep the D90 and put the money into lighting (I'm assuming you don't have any now.) When people see lights, they quickly think "professional," and they will pay more. They will not pay you more because of the camera you use.</p>

<p>Anyway, here's what I shoot for fun. The single most important thing in a photo is the light (use of light.) When you control the light, you have real power. I have no competitors anywhere near me for this sort of thing. </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

[Two23]

<p><<Can you post an image of your lens?>><br /> Darlot Petzval, c.1870s, F-mount by SK Grimes. There is a slot for Waterhouse stops.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

[steven_pink]

<blockquote>

<p>To improve your portrait quality and what you can charge, keep the D90 and put the money into lighting (I'm assuming you don't have any now.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All the portraits I do are outside and I try to use natural light with reflector panels when possible. I have two speedlights and wireless ProMaster receivers, as well as an Orbis Ringflash I won in a photography contest a while back. </p>

<p>I should also mention I've been getting more and more requests to do sports/events. (Two people called me today about a dirtbike race and a music festival!) So, maybe a body with sports performance will be in my future after all.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>For a dirtbike race, no question, I'd take a D7100 over a D600.</p>

[Two23]

<p><<For a dirtbike race, no question, I'd take a D7100 over a D600.>></p>

<p>I used to race motocross and enduro, using a Husqvarna 175cc. FUN! And yes, the D7100 is the obvious choice for that. With 70-200mm VR-1 the focus is instantaneous. The D600's weakness is the AF module. A D800 would work well too, but obviously the cost is nearly double. For a music festival pretty much any camera is going to work as AF isn't a factor.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Below:<br>

Crank Workz Festival at Whistler, British Columbia<br>

Nikon D7100, Nikon 17-55mm f2.8</p><div></div>

[steven_pink]

My previous question still stands... How does the AF system of the D600 compare to the D90? It has to be better, right?

95% of the time I have my AF set to only use my center point and my AE/AF lock button is re-assigned as AF-ON.

[elliot1]

<p>Kent, thanks for posting your images and your comments.</p>

<p>IMHO, any AF module that offers anything less than the D3/D700/D300/D4/D800/D7100 or similar or does not have dual memory card slots eliminates the camera from being useful enough for fast action/low light sports and/or paid photography.</p>

[steven_pink]

How does the D3 compare to others in image quality? It has dual card slots, blazing fast frame rate, great battery life, and it's as durable as a body can get...

[dan_south]

<p>The D750 has the latest autofocus advances. If you're budget is tighter, the D610 is probably fine. I would avoid the D600 (oil of the sensor problem) and the D700 (heavy-handed anti-aliasing filter, single card slot, archaic live view implementation).</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>The only real down-side with the D3 is no self-cleaning sensor....oh and not really enough pixels for cropping.</p>

<p>I shoot horse events with a chap with a D3 and I've got my D700 + Grip. Both have the 70-200mm VRII. He gets loads of sensor crap, where-as I don't.</p>

<p>Once you start trying to do high speed sports <strong><em>and</em></strong> portraiture, you're dealing with 2 different bodies. Maybe one primary and the other as back-up....and the order changes depending on the job. </p>

<p>Kinda D4S for sports and D810 for portraiture & video. Both will do the others job at a pinch, but one is 'better' for the job in hand than the other.</p>

[steven_pink]

I do see the no self cleaning sensor as being probelematic. I didn't know that was missing in the D3! As much as I wish I

could afford a D810, I can't. I can't even afford the reasonable D750. I have to buy something used for around the $1100

mark. If I could afford a used D800 I see it being perfect for me, but such is life and I have to compromise. I've considered

the D7100 a bit more, but I still don't know if it'll pull off the low light stuff that I'd like (but it's better than my D90) and I'd

need to sell a few of my lenses to buy better suited lenses for the short end and "normal" range with the DX sensor.

[Uhooru]

<p>Steven - Re "bokeh" or maybe better term nice creamy out of focus backgrounds with a sharp in focus subject, you have one of the best lenses Nikon makes in that regard with the first version 70-200. It makes it a very good portrait lens as well as a sports lens if it has enough reach as you say it does.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>If you shoot in low light and don't like to use flash, I would at least consider the<em><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/32"><strong> D700</strong></a></em>. There are several on eBay right now at or near your price range. One has about ten thousand shutter actuations (if it hasn't sold aready). Another has 3,500 actuations, but the price will rise by the time the auction closes.</p>

<p>As for used and "dated" cameras, I am shooting the D3s these days about as often as I shoot my D800E. I love them both but use them for very different types of photography (well, most of the time. . . ). Yes, the D3s can do more things than the D700, and it is more durable, but what the D700 does it does very well. Both are great in low light.</p>

<p>Every camera has its strengths and weaknesses, but at least you already know the limitations of shooting with twelve megapixels and one card slot. Neither is a fatal limitation, as long as you know what you have to do to get the shot.</p>

<p>Carry a backup. Consider shooting raw to give yourself some headroom on the highlights.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>For your budget and applications I think my first choice would be the D700 (about dual cards: people shot with film and there was no double film roll writing camera; lab processing failures would destroy everything; I have shot about 350000 frames with digital and never had a card failure; once I lost a few files because I pulled the card out of the camera while it was still writing but that was with a very slow card and a slow camera) and second choice the D7100. The D7100 is a very nice camera and economical for the features and quality. The main drawback of the D7100 is that it has a small buffer (affecting sports) and wide angles produce better quality on FX than DX (and the resale value of the D7100 is not good, but you're taking advantage of it when buying it second hand). D700 has the sensor shaker/cleaner feature, as does the D7100. The main disadvantage of the D700 is that it has relatively low resolution for an FX camera (but it has a reasonable buffer and can do high fps with grip, whereas the D7100 if you shoot NEF files has a quite small buffer so it is really best fit for slower paced shooting).</p>

<p>I agree that with FX cameras in typical situations you can get the combined effect of good sharpness of the main subject and nice blur of the background more consistently and easier than with DX, especially when working with wide angles, normal lenses or short teles (with long teles you can get enough blur with DX as well) which are incidentally used for portraits (not that one always wants shallow depth of field for a portrait, but it is nice to have that option). Also there are very nice f/1.8 primes now that are reasonably economical to buy and yield high image quality at wide apertures. My experience with short fast (FX) primes on DX is not so encouraging and FX makes life easier for this type of images (which you could call environmental portraits but also useful at events). I also find the larger viewfinder a big plus for people photography as I can make a better connection to the subject's emotions in the photograph when I can see the subject more clearly during shooting. DX makes life easier for telephoto shooting especially if you are focal length limited and on a budget, you can get better quality long shots with a DX camera (compared to D700/D3 which have far fewer pixels per angle). No one camera is best for everything, but most cameras in this class are very good for many things.</p>

[Two23]

<p><<I agree that with FX cameras in typical situations you can get the combined effect of good sharpness of the main subject and nice blur of the background more consistently and easier than with DX, especially when working with wide angles, normal lenses or short teles (with long teles you can get enough blur with DX as well) which are incidentally used for portraits (not that one always wants shallow depth of field for a portrait>></p>

<p>Ikkla--<br>

Let's say your budget was pretty limited, e.g. $1,000US, and you were wanting to shoot professional looking portraits. If you had to choose between a D700 and no real lighting system (say a reflector and just an SB-700--no lightstand, umbrellas, softbox etc.) OR use a D90 with two 800ws monolights, battery pack, 8 ft. stands, and the light modifiers of your choice, which would you choose to make saleable portraits?</p>

<p>Steven--<br>

On Nikon gear boards we mostly talk about the generally small real world differences between cameras and lenses. There are other message boards that talk about real world portrait shooting. Spend a day or two looking over these two very popular sites that deal strictly with portrait shooting. Read "Strobist 101" for sure. Take a look at the group pool photos. When I first read all this, I had an epiphany!</p>

<p>https://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/discuss/<br>

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

 

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>Steven- That craigslist deal sounds pretty good. I bought my D600 last year for $1300, body only. I would go ahead and get the 85 1.8 too, if you can. If you don't like it, you can probably sell it for more than the extra $150 you'd pay for it.</p>

<p>I don't do any low-light sports stuff with the d600, so I can't help in that aspect. Before I bought mine, I did a bit of research online and came across this guy reviewing it at a high school football game. His comments might be helpful.</p>

<p><a href="

<p>Re the oil on the sensor issue: It's not as big a deal as people like to make it out to be. I think people were obsessing about it mainly because camera people like to obsess about things. My sensor has oil on it. A couple of the spots are large enough to be easily seen by looking at the sensor with the mirror up. They almost never show up in my pictures. The only time I ever see spots is when they happen to be in an area that it largely monotone (i.e. the sky) when I'm shooting at small apertures. Even when they do, 10 seconds with a healing brush takes care of it. It's so much of a non-issue for me that I've never bothered to clean the sensor, even though it's not at all hard to do. The point being, I wouldn't let that sway you on buying a D600 or not.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>First of all, this thread is Steven Pink's question. We have asked him to consider DX, and he has made it clear that he wants FX. So please respect his wishes.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>about dual cards: people shot with film and there was no double film roll writing camera; lab processing failures would destroy everything; I have shot about 350000 frames with digital and never had a card failure; once I lost a few files because I pulled the card out of the camera while it was still writing but that was with a very slow card and a slow camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That kind of reasoning makes no sense. It is like saying ISO 400 color film was high ISO 15 years ago so that today we also don't need ISO 1600, 3200 and above from digital.</p>

<p>In the past, I had lost entire rolls of film due to processing or mailing errors, and I also received someone else's slides in the mail. Film has such limitations and there wasn't much we could do about it. Today, the technology has improved and so has the standards. If you are paid photographer, you need to hold yourself to higher standards. Maybe you can get away with it when you are a high school teenager, but in the next few years when you are a bit established, hopefully better paid as a photographer, you need to meet professional standards. I have lost a number of digital images over the years, due to glitches either in the camera or the cards. I used the D800E to capture my parents in late 2012, and some files on one card were corrupted. A few days later, my mother suddenly passed away. At least the other card held images that turned out to be the very last ones for my mother.</p>

<p>According to Murphy's Law, you tend to lose the most important images. I am not suggesting that one should forget about all other features and only use cameras with dual memory cards, but that feature is available on higher consumer-grade cameras such as the D7000 and D7100, plus the D600 and up today; it is no longer a luxury. If the D700 with its single card really fits you well in all other aspects, by all means get a D700 for now, but in the longer run, I would move up to something that meets current standards soon.</p>

[steven_pink]

I do see having two card slots as being a really nice feature. I've never lost a card of photos, but it would be awful if it ever

did happen. I would prefer a D610 for the AF performance, no oil issues, etc. but they're quite a bit more expensive than a

D600. And considering I only do this for fun, I prefer not to spend a fortune on a camera body because it depreciates and

becomes "outdated" faster than any piece of equipment.

 

Sadly, my craigslist D600 sold this morning when I called about driving down to buy it. :(

[ShunCheung]

<p>The D600 and D610 are almost identical cameras. My interpretation is that Nikon introduced the D610 a year after the D600 to clear it from the very negative oil/dust D600 publicity. Both of them use the 39-point Multi-CAM 4800 AF module, which works quite well on my DX-format D7000. On FX, those 39 AF points are too concentrated in the center. However, since the D600 was introduced on the heel of the D800, Nikon needed a way to differentiate the two.</p>

<p>The new D750 with the Multi-CAM 3500 AF module (51 AF points) is perhaps what a lot of people wish the D600 should have been two years earlier.</p>

<p>But since Steven is coming from a D90, just about any Nikon DSLR introduced since 2010 @ above $1000 initially is going to be a significant upgrade. Since Nikon has made it clear that they will repair or replace all D600 with oil issues, your risk with that problem is not that high. You may need to go thru a lot of hassle to get a defective D600 repaired, though.</p>

[cc_chang1]

<blockquote>

<p>I would prefer a D610 for the AF <a id="itxthook5" href="/nikon-camera-forum/00cqiW?start=70" rel="nofollow">performance<img id="itxthook5icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a>, no oil issues, etc. but they're quite a bit more expensive than a D600. And considering I only do this for fun, I prefer not to spend a fortune on a camera body because it depreciates and becomes "outdated" <a id="itxthook6" href="/nikon-camera-forum/00cqiW?start=70" rel="nofollow">faster<img id="itxthook6icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> than any piece of equipment.<br>

Sadly, my craigslist D600 sold this morning when I called about driving down to buy it. :(</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I personally would not touch a D600 as some people have reported still having the same oil/dust issue even after Nikon has repaired it. May be this has been addressed after Nikon has finally replaced the whole shutter, but may be not, and I personally do not want to live with that doubt and to constantly worry that my camera will fail without warning.</p>

<p>My take on the bokeh issue, bokeh is the "quality" of the out of focus area, whether it is creamy or harsh. This is a LENS issue, not the sensor. For the same 50mm or 85 mm lens, the AFD versions have harsh bokeh, while the new AFS version have much smoother bokeh, regardless of what cameras you mount them on. In order to get a whole body shot, with a FF sensor, you would normally pick a 50mm lens, but with an APSC camera, to cover the same person, you need a 35mm lens. A 35 mm lens being wider will give you "more DOF" (not worse bokeh) than a 50 mm lens covering the same object. However to even out the degree of blur (again not bokeh just DOF), you may shoot a 50mm lens on a FF camera at f 3.5 (to get the person in focus but throw the background out of focus) but with a 35 mm lens on APSC, you could shoot it at f2.8 or wider to give you the same <em>degree of blur</em>. Thus, if you want creamy bokeh, pick the right lens first. To get less DOF with a APSC camera, use faster lenses and shoot them wider. This should solve most of your "bokeh" problem.</p>

<p>I have recently "upgraded" from D90 to D7100, and I can tell you the focus tracking ability in the D7100 is superior, period. Although D7100 is rated at -2EV (and the D90 at -1?), in low light single area AF, however, I don't see that much a difference (but my lenses are all f2.8 or faster). The higher resolution sensor is great for cropping; however it is very true that it seems more difficult to get tack sharp images with the D7100 unless I raise the shutter speed (which to some degree negates the ISO advantage of the D7100 over that of the D90). I have a thread discussing this if you want more details. Dual card slot is nice when I am asked to do a job. I also love the fact that it has an electronic level to teach me how to keep the camera level, and is water resistant so I can shoot my kids splashing. I did not upgrade to D610 because the 39 AF points in a FF camera are clustered all in the middle and there is no AF sensor reaching out to the corners (the rule of third). These corners could be the eyes of a person in portrait orientation, for example. You could AF and then recompose but this may cause the focal plane to change enough to degrade sharpness of your images. If so, where is the "upgrade?"</p>

<p>In summary, if you want to go FF, D750 to me is the right camera. If you can't afford it, just wait. Keep the D90 and upgrade your lens. To improve bokeh, replace the 85/1.8 AFD with the 85/1.8G. If your 50 is the AFD version, get the AFS version for $200. If you can spend a little bit more, the older SIGMA 50/1.4 at $400 gives you superb bokeh. (Since I replace my 85/1.8D with the 85/1.8G, I no longer use the SIGMA very much) Instead of a big and heavy 24-70, consider the SIGMA 17-50/2.8 at about $400. It is a DX lens but lighter and cheaper than the 24-70. It is very sharp with nice bokeh. You can get nicer lenses within your budget.</p>